reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 gave the FBI a thumb drive containing 29 minutes of high-definition video showing two men attacking a building. As of this morning, neither man has been arrested. Speaker 0 states that despite going through over 725 indictments, none of their video or even a single still picture of either man has appeared on the Internet. The FBI is allegedly refusing to take Speaker 0's calls, return emails, or accept an offer to meet. Speaker 0 believes the FBI is hiding these men. Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to inquire about the identities of these men. Speaker 0 confirms that Ben Grundler has all this information and that they have been in contact for over a year.

The speaker questions the Minister about whether her chief of staff read an issues management note. The Minister denies that her chief of staff read it. The speaker accuses the Minister of providing inaccurate testimony in previous committee meetings. The Minister admits that she did not read the issues management note but argues that it was not brought to her attention. The speaker criticizes the Minister for not knowing the location of a secure terminal on the same floor as her office. The Minister defends herself, stating that she does not have access to the terminal. The speaker questions whether the Minister instructed her officials to bring important memos to her attention. The Minister explains that she was not advised about the memo and that it was not shared with her. The speaker argues that the Minister should take responsibility for not reading the memo. The Minister acknowledges the need for responsibility and states that steps have been taken to address the issue. The speaker accuses the Minister of blaming others and asserts that she has failed. The Minister disagrees with the characterization and emphasizes the importance of addressing what did not happen.

The speaker mentions that the document was redacted to protect the source. They also mention that there are 17 voice recordings, two of which involve the current president. The speaker questions why this information was redacted and not given to the House Oversight.

At some point, there is a correlation between the purging of the database and the date of the audit. They both happen almost at the same time, the day before the audit. This connection requires an explanation.

Your mandate wasn't investigative, so why issue a report? Can you clarify the distinction between information and evidence? We're not discussing evidence that would hold up in court. We did not collect or retain any materials, such as raw footage or photos, related to this matter. We have no such materials.

The committee asked for information on how many of these so‑called police stations are operating currently in Canada, and whether any have been shut down. Response: There is deep concern about allegations and reports of foreign interference, including public reports of these so‑called police stations. The details of the investigation are the subject of ongoing initiatives by the RCMP, and questions about those details should be directed to the commissioner. The subsequent question specifically asked the commissioner to provide information to Canadians on how many of these alleged stations are operating in Canada, have operated previously, and if any have been shut down. Answer: Currently, we’re looking at three of the police stations in Toronto and one in Vancouver. We’re working with our police jurisdictions as well as with other Government of Canada national security agencies. An investigation has been initiated and is led by the Greater Toronto Integrated National Security Enforcement Team (INSET). So far, elements of the investigation have been very overt—there have been marked police cars and uniformed members to cause disruption to the allegations. We’ve released that visible presence, and that’s mostly so that people will see the actions, for two reasons: first, because we need more information, and second, so that when police are in the area dealing with the allegations, people will come forward. The investigation is ongoing, and while the details can’t be discussed publicly, a statement in October/November indicated that an investigation was underway into reports of possible activities at those locations. The committee member then asked for clarification: Can you confirm that you know the locations of these supposed police stations, and that RCMP in uniform have been at those locations causing disruption? Response: No. In the initial instances, instead of disruption by going in uniform with marked police cars, the approach was to speak with the people involved at those police stations or locations because those locations are a legitimate business in the front. The committee then asked for a timeline on when the investigation would conclude and whether the allegations are true. The conversation moved to indicate the inquiry would continue, but no specific conclusion timeline was provided in the exchanged statements.

Preliminary findings suggest smoke around most allegations, indicating a serious situation. The board is implicated in terrible ways. Canada's auditor general was initially involved, but nothing was shut down or anyone fired when it became a political problem. The speaker questions the allocation of $220,000 to a company and asks about the date when whistleblower allegations were learned. The chair of the fund directed tax dollars to her own company. The NDP liberal coalition blocked a motion to hear from the whistleblower, raising concerns about government corruption. Conservatives aim to uncover who benefited from the $1 billion slush fund scandal.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if they gained any evidence after a certain point, to which Speaker 1 responds that they weren't collecting evidence. Speaker 0 then questions if they should be able to recall such information. Speaker 1 clarifies that they presented themselves as witnesses, not investigators, when they approached the FBI. Speaker 0 suggests that they made a complaint without evidence, and Speaker 1 disagrees, stating that they believed a crime had occurred in good faith. Speaker 0 interrupts and asks why they didn't talk to Ken Paxton, but Speaker 2 requests that Speaker 1 be allowed to finish answering. The transcript ends.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 repeatedly apologize. Speaker 0 emphasizes not lying about evidence and wanting to provide more information. Speaker 1 mentions paying for something and Speaker 0 agrees, mentioning a forensic audit. Speaker 1 mentions needing more time, but Speaker 0 declines. Speaker 0 concludes by urging the audience to listen because they have facts.

The speaker discusses the issue of Windows security logs being purged right before two audits were set to begin. They highlight the difficulty in determining who had access to the RTR admin account, which is shared among all accounts. The speaker questions why someone would delete all the results and records from the Dominion software, which is used for tallying and reporting election results, just before an audit. They mention that the deletion was successful and affected files on the NAS directory where election images and details were stored. Overall, the speaker emphasizes the lack of accountability and the need to understand the motives behind this action.

Speaker 0: You broke this incredible story about NSA intercepts showing Ukrainian officials basically discussing a plot to funnel back millions in American aid money back to the Biden 2024 campaign through, you know, none other than USAID. I mean Yeah. Really, I guess it shouldn't surprise us anymore, but it should shock us. You know, can you walk us through it and, you know, what else we need to know? Speaker 1: Yeah. Let's give everybody a little quick history lesson because the context of this is important. In 2016, we know that The US the Ukrainian embassy in The United States was advocating for Hillary Clinton's campaign. They the ambassador even wrote an op ed doing so. Yeah. In the period before that, they were enriching the Ukrainian gas company. Barisma was enriching Joe Biden's son Hunter. So Ukrainians generally have had a leftward lurch in their support in the American political system, sometimes very overtly, like putting Hunter Biden on the board or Burisma or their ambassador writing an op ed saying they would prefer Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump in 2016. Then we get through the whole impeachment scandal. We're told, don't believe any of that Ukrainian liberal preference. Turns out it was all true. It wasn't a conspiracy theory. Hunter Biden and the Democratic party were deeply entangled with the Ukrainian government, Ukrainian businesses. And we lived through that. Joe Biden's in the White House. And in 2022 and early twenty three, his fundraising is lagging even though he's the incumbent. He's got the problems with the Afghanistan withdrawal, questions about his mental acuity, enormous unpopularity, particularly when it comes to an open border. And so it's at that moment when NSA guys with headphones on are listening and they intercept a series of conversations. Some of these are probably on email. And it's a senior government official in the Ukrainian government of president Zelenskyy talking about a plot, that has been discussed with USAID workers, our foreign aid agency workers in Kyiv to give a $2,300,000,000 clean energy grant to Ukraine. Now Ukraine's in the middle of a war with Russia. The last thing they're gonna be building is some clean energy project. They're trying Speaker 0: to They're not building solar panels and you're getting bombed every day. It's probably not a great use of a panel. Speaker 1: Complete ruse. And they even say so. Listen, the intercept suggests that this is not gonna be a justified project. But you'll spend the money, and then by the time they discover it, won't it be recoverable. And the goal is take that money, then you're gonna give it to nongovernmental organizations, nonprofits, then they're gonna hire subcontractors with the USAID money. And then those subcontractors are gonna hire American companies. And those American companies are then gonna move the money into the coffers of Joe Biden's 2024 campaign and the Democratic National Committee. And they said they hope to arrange this in such a way that 90% of the money that originally came from you and I taxpayers through USAID to Ukraine would ultimately be laundered into the DNC and Joe Biden to help his 2024 campaign. That's what's been captured. That was only recently discovered. That intercept or series of intercepts were not ever brought to the attention of anyone at the FBI or anyone during the Biden years. Tulsi Gabbard just recently found it. She's asked the USAID to go look and see if they can find the contract. Did it happen? Was there some fraud involved? And so there's a beginning of an investigation to find out what whether whether what was discussed ultimately transpired, and we should know answers in a couple of weeks. Speaker 0: I mean, do we trust

Doctor Moran, a senior advisor to Fauci, discussed deleting emails to avoid FOIA requests, which goes against NIH policies. He also mentioned avoiding "smoking guns" in emails. Moran shared internal discussions with Daszak and helped craft responses to FOIAs, actions not in line with NIH policies. Tabak expressed concern over these actions. Moran is still employed by NIH. The questions raised highlight potential transparency issues within the NIH. Translation: Doctor Moran, a senior advisor to Fauci, discussed deleting emails to avoid FOIA requests, which goes against NIH policies. He also mentioned avoiding "smoking guns" in emails. Moran shared internal discussions with Daszak and helped craft responses to FOIAs, actions not in line with NIH policies. Tabak expressed concern over these actions. Moran is still employed by NIH. The questions raised highlight potential transparency issues within the NIH.

The speaker reveals shocking information about the deletion of the entire database directory from the d drive of the machine called EMS primary. This deletion occurred approximately 10 days before the machines were handed over to the Senate. Deleting documents after being told to preserve them can have severe legal consequences. Additionally, the main database for the election management system software, which contains all election-related data from the November 2020 general election, is missing from the EMS primary machine. This suggests that it has been removed.

Speaker 0 notes that part of the RCMP’s examination concerned whether the prime minister violated section 139(2) of the Criminal Code by obstruction of justice. Speaker 1 confirms this. Speaker 0 cites paragraph 19 of the RCMP investigation report, stating that the strongest fury toward obstruction of justice was that the prime minister shuffled Jody Wilson-Raybould out of the position of attorney general so that a new attorney general would make a different decision regarding the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin. Speaker 1 confirms. Speaker 0 adds that the RCMP did not have access to all material evidence surrounding Wilson-Raybould being shuffled out as attorney general. Speaker 1 confirms. Speaker 0 emphasizes that the RCMP did not have access to all material evidence on the strongest theory about the prime minister’s potential criminality involving obstruction of justice, and explains this was due to the scope parameters of the order in council with respect to the waiver of cabinet confidentiality. Speaker 1 confirms. Speaker 0 clarifies, and then emphasizes, that the reason the RCMP could not obtain that evidence central to determining whether the prime minister broke the law was because of the scope parameters of the order in council. Speaker 1 confirms. Speaker 0 asks who had authority to expand the parameters, suggesting the prime minister could do so. Speaker 1 responds that he is not exactly sure of the process but believes the decision must be made within somewhere in the government. Speaker 0 asserts that the decision would have to be made by the prime minister, but the RCMP requested expansion to obtain that evidence. Speaker 1 says yes, they did request an expansion before proceeding with the assessment. Speaker 2 corrects that the request was not to follow the evidence but to glean additional information that could be evidence. Speaker 0 states the request to expand was turned down on 08/30/2019. Speaker 1 clarifies that the request for expansion was not allowed. Speaker 0 states it was refused by the prime minister’s personal department, the PCO. Speaker 1 recalls receiving a letter from the Department of Justice and notes it originated with the PCO, as referenced in the RCMP investigation report. Speaker 0 asks whether the refusal by the prime minister’s department significantly impeded the full investigation. Speaker 2 says it limited the RCMP’s capability to pursue a full investigation. He adds that there could be additional information but cannot speculate about its contents, describing a “Pandora box” metaphor. Speaker 0 states the record shows the prime minister’s department obstructed the RCMP investigation and asks if there is any other Canadian who could single-handedly block such an investigation. Speaker 2 declines to use the term “block,” reiterating that the RCMP operates within allowed parameters and acknowledges information outside access cannot be used. Speaker 0 asks whether the prime minister’s personal department provided an explanation for refusing to expand the order in council. Speaker 1 states that privilege exists for a reason and that they must operate within the established parameters. Speaker 0 suggests the situation appears to be part of a pattern of cover-up. Speaker 2 agrees to let others draw their own conclusions but reiterates that the RCMP made efforts to obtain more information, which was refused. Speaker 0 thanks Commissioner Cooper.

Speaker 0 asks about the location of hard evidence recorded on telemetry tapes. Speaker 1 responds that they haven't seen any indication that the telemetry data even exists, and even if it did, they don't have the machines to play it back. Speaker 0 clarifies that Speaker 1's research has shown the telemetry data is missing, which Speaker 1 confirms.

The speaker questions whether purging the 2020 election database in February is a standard practice for all elections. The response is uncertain, but they promise to provide an answer. The speaker further asks why data from previous elections was still present on the databases. Again, there is no clear answer, but they assure the congressman that they will find out. The chairman mentions limited server space as a reason for making room for new election data. The speaker raises concerns about the credibility of the recorder, who had criticized Adrian Fontes, the person in charge of the 2020 election. The speaker clarifies that they had a bipartisan board overseeing the election to ensure fairness.

Is it standard practice to delete files off a server after an election? I hope not. So, you admit Maricopa County deleted files after the election? Those files were archived. The auditors initially didn’t have access to those archived files, correct? They did not subpoena those, that's right. You didn’t feel obligated to turn them over? We responded to the subpoena. It’s laughable to suggest a county could delete files in response to a subpoena. Your Twitter mentions purging the 2020 election database in February as standard practice. Can you confirm that’s done for all elections? I cannot confirm that today, but we’ll get you an answer. Why was data from prior elections still present? I don’t have an answer now, but we will provide one. The recorder will answer questions in a timely fashion, but he previously criticized Adrian Fontes, who ran the 2020 election. Yes, we had oversight from both parties during the election.

Is it standard practice to delete files off a server after an election? I hope not. So, you admit Maricopa County deleted files after the election? Those files were archived. Initially, auditors didn’t have access to those archived files, correct? They did not subpoena those, that’s correct. It’s laughable to suggest that a county can delete files in response to a subpoena while claiming they are archived. Your Twitter mentions purging the 2020 election database in February; is that standard for all elections? I can’t confirm that today, but we’ll get you an answer. Why was data from prior elections still present? I don’t have an answer now, but we’ll provide one. The recorder will answer questions timely. You hired someone to oversee the 2020 election due to concerns about Adrian Fontes, correct? We took back responsibility for election operations to ensure oversight.

I took time to reply after receiving an invitation, as something felt off. In a recent meeting, new information was shared that raised concerns. We agreed to work together for a thorough investigation by the IOPC. Concerns were raised about corrupted footage and potential criminality. The speaker presented clips showing discrepancies in the handling of evidence. Further investigation is being pursued with the involvement of GMP.

The video discusses allegations of criminal activity, including identity theft, fraudulent resumes, contractual theft, fraudulent billing, price fixing, and collusion involving senior bureaucrats and three contractors. The RCMP is investigating the matter. The meeting is adjourned after a motion to do so is passed.

Is it standard practice to delete files off a server after an election? I hope not. It’s appropriate to maintain files, and while we deleted some files, they were archived. The auditors initially did not have access to those archived files because they were not subpoenaed. It’s laughable to suggest that deleting files in response to a subpoena is acceptable. The subpoena should have covered all election-related records. I cannot confirm if purging the database after elections is standard practice, but limited server space may require it. If that is the case, why was data from prior elections still present? We will provide answers to these questions. It's important to note that we had oversight during the 2020 election due to concerns about the previous administration's competence.

Speaker 1 questions the lack of disclosure regarding charges against Sam Bankman Fried. Speaker 0 confirms the existence of a memo recommending charges but states it has not been sent. Speaker 1 expresses frustration and suggests involving the Department of Justice. Speaker 0 mentions the need to keep investigative matters confidential. Speaker 1 concludes by stating they will follow up on the matter.

Speaker 0 mentions that an investigation has been started regarding a recent issue, which Speaker 1 questions. Speaker 2 suggests asking the Party Board members for more information. Speaker 0 asks if there will be an investigation into what happened and the victims' experiences. Speaker 2 explains that the investigation is complicated since the person involved is no longer a member of the parliament. Speaker 0 expresses concern about the victims and their stories. Speaker 2 says everything can be read about it and didn't expect to discuss it. Speaker 0 understands it's a sensitive topic. Speaker 1 mentions going to Afghanistan and having lunch. Speaker 0 points out that an investigation should have been conducted. Speaker 1 explains that the person can only return when there is a vacancy. The conversation ends with Speaker 1 suggesting asking the same question later.

The speaker confirms an ongoing investigation. This investigation was prompted by a motion in the House of Commons. They also state that they received a USB key, which is currently being stored. The investigation relates to events at the SDTC.

New information reveals that ArriveCAN contractors submitted receipts for a non-existent company. The investigation already involves allegations of identity theft, forged resumes, contractual theft, fraudulent billing, price fixing, and collusion in the creation of the $54 million ArriveCAN app. The speaker questions how much worse this situation can get and asks which Liberal insiders got rich. In response, the honorable minister states that public servants are expected to follow appropriate contracting practices. The Border Services Agency uncovered information during an internal audit and referred it to the police. The minister emphasizes the importance of letting the RCMP handle the investigation.